Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Nov 6, 2012 5:47am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Hey Yo Mando, wait a minute, not so fast ....

"Just because your ass hat of a president issues a signing statement saying that it's an extension of AUMF."

I'm not a fan of the NDAA, but let's not get carried away. I'm not talking about the signing statement. I'm talking about the specific section of the law that you yourself pointed us to. A cursory reading of the opening lines clearly demonstrates the legal basis and the limitations of the law. I'm not arguing that it doesn't apply to US citizens, but it does clearly state that they must have been involved in the 9/11 attacks or supporters of Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

"SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

With respect to the Republican Party's position on abortion, I stand by what I said. The platform (not Romney's position, the Party platform) calls for a constitutional amendment granting 14th amendment protections for the "unborn." Granting these protections to fetuses will make abortion legally equivalent to murder. Do you disagree? Feel free to point me to the parts that call for exceptions, because I don't see any. You say it's disingenuous? Show me where it calls for exceptions or explain how this is implied? I'm not seeing it/

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: BornEasement Date: Nov 6, 2012 7:41am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Hey Yo Mando, wait a minute, not so fast ....

DEVILS ADVOCATE HERE

but it could be argued that IF murder is "the unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse" (and therefore always morally objectionable and wrongful) then the question of whether or not an act is murder must logically precede the question of whether or not we are free to perform the act.


It could further be argued that science/philosophy/law/medicine have thus far failed in determining whether an unborn fetus qualifies as a "human being" beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore the possibility remains that a fetus IS a human being and that abortion does qualify as murder. Since this is as yet undetermined, we cannot yet arrive at the question of our freedom to perform the act. It would be like shooting at a dark form that MAY be your game and MAY be a person. The extraneous circumstances (in this line of thinking) would only come into account once we are SURE that it is not, in fact, murder, since no extraneous circumstances (by the definition of provided above) can possibly justify murder.

Thus even if its only a 1% chance that the dark form you're aiming at is a person and not a buck, you don't take the shot (even to feed your starving children).

I'm not saying this is how I think, or how anyone should think. But this argument was once presented to me (by a very very clever man with very very ugly opinions) and I'd like a hand in untangling what seems to be extraordinarily sound logic.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Nov 6, 2012 7:38am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Hey Yo Mando, wait a minute, not so fast ....

If you look back at every post I have made here on the forum you will not find a single post of mine that discusses my stance on abortion. I won't elaborate on specifics.

To your question, I don't agree that granting 14th Amendment protection to the unborn necessarily makes abortion legally equivalent to murder because you would have to have provisions for conditions where the mother's life is threatened or the wrenching case we saw a few years ago where a mother was carrying twins with a genetic condition and had to choose which of the twins to abort to ensure her survival and the survival of the remaining twin.

Very little in the law is absolute, so provisions for exceptions could be written into the law.

I also see feel we have a moral responsibility to advocate for the unborn to some degree. Abortion as a method of dealing with a pregnancy because it's an unwanted inconvenience is unthinkable. I get it for rape, incest, life of the mother cases - but even in rape cases, I think there should be some deliberative process of deciding. I have two friends (that I know of) who conceived after a rape and chose to keep the child and are exceptionally happy. I also understand that some would choose otherwise - and I support their right to choose in that instance. It's a tough balance to advocate for the unborn while preserving a woman's choice. In short, I think Roe v. Wade is extreme, but I also think that making all abortion illegal is equally extreme.

Then there's the issue of the 10th Amendment. I strongly feel that abortion should be a state decision. I don't agree that abortions should be funded by a single penny of Federal taxpayer dollars. I love the firestorm of discussion that comes up surrounding Planned Parenthood. PP actually provides a much needed service wrt pre-natal care, screenings, and contraceptive counseling. I'd be hard pressed to come up with a number, but I seriously doubt a sizeable percentage of PP's funding directly supports abortions. I would completely disconnect funding support for abortions from health and insurance plans that employers have to provide to their workers - almost entirely from a 10th Amendment perspective.

Back to NDAA, the problem with your argument that "it does clearly state that they must have been involved in the 9/11 attacks or supporters of Al Qaeda or the Taliban." is that it doesn't "clearly" state that. Here's the rub - Sec 1021.b.2 is deliberately vague and does not define "substantially supported". Supporters would argue that it is subjective, but would be an objective common sense decision. There is nothing about "subjective" law that is unsupported by existing legal precedent. That is dangerous and where the Constitutional 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments have been gutted wrt NDAA.

My biggest issue with those who defend NDAA by saying "Well that part was just written poorly" or Obama's assertion that "Well, I'll sign this, but I don't like and I'll never do it to an American citizen" (I paraphrased) is pretty easy to resolve. If it was "just poorly written" then send the fucking thing back to committee and rewrite it or even better, Obama should have demonstrated real leadership and said "This fucking thing is bullshit, I will not sign any legislation into law that circumvents the Constitutional rights of American citizens. Send this back to the House and Senate, rewrite it and then get back to me." If he had done that, the election would have been over on 31 December 2011.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Nov 6, 2012 8:49am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Hey Yo Mando, wait a minute, not so fast ....

Thanks. I would merely ask that Republican platform simply state that they do not intend to outlaw abortions in those cases -- life of the mother, rape, incest -- if that's indeed what their position is.

If what applying the 14th amendment to the "unborn" does is make a fetus indistinguishable, legally speaking, from a born human being, with the same rights, then it's hard to imagine how a subsequent law allowing this new "person" to be killed simply because his/her father is a rapist or his/her parents are brother and sister would be constitutional. Or do you see it differently? That's why your argument -- which I believe reflects your personal position -- rings hollow to me. I don't see room for these exceptions the way that the Republican platform envisions this thing.

I would also like it if Congress and Obama would be more explicit that they do not intend to snatch Mandojammer in the middle of the night and send him to Djibouti for interrogation (although I'm not totally sure that you're not asking for it).